https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80347 Clandestine removal was not proved where the quantity recorded in the RG-1 register was physically found in the premises and the only objection was that the bags were not fully stitched or stamped at the time of inspection. The requirement to mark bags under Rule 51 was to be complied with as soon as practicable after packing or readiness for removal, so immediate stamping failure did not by itself show that another set of goods had already been removed or that there was double transport. In the absence of tangible evidence beyond presumption, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. en-us Mon, 19 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jun 2011 12:24:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80347 Clandestine removal was not proved where the quantity recorded in the RG-1 register was physically found in the premises and the only objection was that the bags were not fully stitched or stamped at the time of inspection. The requirement to mark bags under Rule 51 was to be complied with as soon as practicable after packing or readiness for removal, so immediate stamping failure did not by itself show that another set of goods had already been removed or that there was double transport. In the absence of tangible evidence beyond presumption, confiscation and penalty were unsustainable. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 19 Feb 1990 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=80347